<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (12) TMI 731 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352462</link>
    <description>Where adjudication rests on witness statements, a specific request for cross-examination must be considered and answered by a reasoned order. Failure to deal with that objection leaves the decision non-speaking and vulnerable, because the denial of an effective opportunity to test the statements goes to the root of procedural fairness. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with a specific finding on cross-examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:38:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 731 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352462</link>
      <description>Where adjudication rests on witness statements, a specific request for cross-examination must be considered and answered by a reasoned order. Failure to deal with that objection leaves the decision non-speaking and vulnerable, because the denial of an effective opportunity to test the statements goes to the root of procedural fairness. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with a specific finding on cross-examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>